Jump to content

Talk:Janet Jackson singles discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.38.143.2 (talk) at 21:10, 8 October 2014 (→Why have r&b chart figures been eliminated?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

album sales

Upon entering the Janet Jackson discography - I have noticed that someone drastically altered her chart positions and in spite left false information. I have tried to fix the discography to the best of my ability. I hope someone can help fix the tables back to their original state.

The album sales seem to be inflated. 69.249.114.154 22:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a problem with the Hot 100 Singles chart for Janet Jackson. Scream was #1 single for Michael and Janet Jackson. It debuted at #1 and quickly faded from the chart. The second problem is that the single, If, peaked #2. I have looked at my old Billboard magazines and found that these two singles peaked at #1 and #2, respectively.

Don't know what Billboard youre looking at, but "Scream" debuted (and peaked) at #5 on Hot 100. This confirmed by back issues I have and also an archive search on billboard.biz. You have made these types of incorrect changes with other discogrphies too. Based on above comment I am going to run through this and double-check everything. -- eo 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that some of the chart peaks for Canada are wrong, and don't even match the peaks stated in the individual articles. I tried to fix this, but my edits were reverted. Can someone please fix this. The correct chart peaks are listed here-http://www.mjjcharts.com/Canadajanet.htm Thanks

That is not a reliable source. — Realist2 22:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What source are you using?63.215.26.168 (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to use a source. I'm just reverting unsourced alterations to the article. — Realist2 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, we will keep the false information up then, that's fine. 63.215.26.168 (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un-cited and unreliable sales information

The discography currently contains a lot of information that is un-sourced and needs verification (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). I've just finished tidying up the discography and I removed sales information relating to singles simply because its clear its wrong, and its un-cited. As for albums, I left the figures up there at the moment and placed a cite tag ([citation needed]) on them. The figures need to be verified or else they have to be removed. Fan sites and other personal websites are not generally seen as reliable (as fans always - without exception in my experience - inflate the figures). Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further assistance.

I will leave the album sales up until the end of April - that should give ample time for a reliable and verifiable source to be found. If not, I'll remove the sales information until a reliable source can be established. Rimmers 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed all the unsourced sales information as no one has been able to provide verifiable or reliable sources for the claims. Rimmers 12:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Rhythm Nation and Control did not sell the same!

  • WORLDWIDE, they did, but in the US, Rhythm Nation 1814 sold 1 million more.
  • I'm really sorry that I changed a few things that I knew were wrong, but although it's verry petty, my family were telling me that 20 Y.0, and So Excited werent doing good and that nobody cared or liked them, and because I hate to be wrong I purusely changed several things to make it looke like Janet was still on top, well the good is that they belived it and arent talking trash about Janet anymore, I'm realy sorry if I confused anyone. But I hate being wrong especially when its about Janet Jackson, hope you guys can forgive me, I was just defending my baby.
Your reasons were not just. The Janet Jackson Discography article is often a mess because of fans who come along and attempt to inflate sales figures for vanity. Anyone who purposely skews the accuracy of the articles should be banned from Wikipedia. Do not do this again. – The Real One Returns (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Weekend' is not the new single!!

Janet's official website has confirmed that the song is not the new single, nor will it feature on the new album. Its just a 'taster' of whats to come. The first single will be called "Call on Me". See www.janetjackson.comRimmers 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Sources

I have added new sources to this page. Here they are [1]

Former Discography

Alright, I think it's stupid to say that both Control and Rhythm Nation 1814 sold 14 million copies each. This is an idea of what the old discography looked like

Control - 14 million copies sold (5.2 million US) Control: The Remixes - 1.5 million copies sold Rhythm Nation 1814 - 19 million copies sold (6.4 million US) Janet. - 22 million copies sold (7.8 million US) Janet.Remixes - 1.5 million copies sold The Velvet Rope - 11.5 million copies sold (4.1 million US) All for You - 7.5 million copies sold (3.1 million US) Damita Jo - 3 million copies sold (1 million US)

Single Sales Info

What about her single sales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.54.48.82 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

With u

Huray Janet's single with U moved up 11 points in the R&B catagorey, yay.

Footnotes

I've removed the footnotes from the article because they are unsourced and non-verifiable. If someone can provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) then the information can be replaced - but as it it, it shouldn't be included in the discography. Rimmers 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes:

  • U.S. sales of the album janet. are based on 7.0 million Nielsen SoundScan sales, and 860,000 copies of the album sold through BMG Music Club as of 2002. The album is certified by the RIAA for sales of only 6 million, since BMG Music Club is not tracked by Nielsen SoundScan, sales of "janet." are much higher than they have been certified for.
  • U.S. Nielsen SoundScan sales of The Velvet Rope are 3.2 million copies, the album also sold 420,000 copies through the BMG Music Club.
  • U.S. sales of the album All For You are based on 3.1 million Nielsen SoundScan sales, and 100,000 copies of the album sold through BMG Music Club as of 2002. The album is certified by the RIAA for sales of only 2 million, since BMG Music Club is not tracked by Nielsen SoundScan, sales of "All For You" are much higher than they have been certified for.


Who ever put up those last notes do not put up so random shit. Craving Janet has gone and done the research and put up the links. The sales you put had no links to back it up thus they were removed by me. You made no sense and if you have something to say about the sales you should leave a note in the discussion page you fool. Unless you put links proving that Janet has sold what you think that put your links. craving Janet has done real accurate research do not just leave a link of ambiguous riaa links what crap leave the fucking page alone. It is accurate to the most it can be nobody really knows what she has sold, in fact nobody knows what any artist has really sold are you God. Leave the page these are accurate estimates.

signed Lisksosp

    • Swetheart, An ignorant fan site that made up figures based on SOME sales statistics they THOUGHT they read in SOME magazine is not a viable source. CravingJanet is filled with inaccurate and utterly wrong "facts."

Album covers

Why are the album covers not allowed on this article? What's the problem with taking the cover images featured on the main articles and linking them here? This article looks so BARREN without the album covers. 71.65.23.14 10:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images are only usable under the fair-use criteria; use in articles like this doesn't meet those criteria, so including them is a copyright violation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Figures

The site that these are linked to has made a major error in their sales data that causes the data to be over estimated. This site therefore is non credible, and there are others available that are. The issue is that they have mixed RIAA (shipped sales) with Soundscan and BMG Music Club (over the counter sales). Stating Music Club sales are not included in Soundscan sales, is a true statement, BUT Soundscan does not equal RIAA. RIAA = Soundscan + BMG [2]. So, Music Club sales have been counted twice. I suggest using [3] 60.234.242.196 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for your claims about accuracy? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly as I have specified. Counting the same sales figures twice is certainly a non accurate way of obtaining sales figures 60.234.242.196 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's a statement of what you say that they did; do you have a source for that statement? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source to my statement. Thanks for pointing that out. Even though I have pointed out that the source used is making an error, I am assuming that you consider this original research. Bad data is better than a second reference that also constitutes being a verified source, and does not have the error? The more sources the better, and the more consensus the better too.60.234.242.196 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no way that I would ever trust a fansite that is associated with MJ. His fans hate on her 100%. And there are no sources to back up their "claims".

Sales Figures Fixed

I fixed Jackson's American and Worldwide sales figures, which were severely inflated by her army of fansites. CravingJanet is a Janet Jackson fansite that published inaccurate figures that are easily refuted by three databases of worldwide sales figures and certifications. I posted my sources that list Jackson's Worldwide sales at less than half of what her fansites falsely report. A&M and VIRGIN may have left Jackson's albums undercertified by 76%, but that doesn't constitute nearly doubling Jackson's Worldwide figures.

Sales Figures Still Inaccurate

After I corrected Jackson's sales figures, someone reverted them back to being wrong and grossly inflated. I'm not going to fight ignorant super-fans; keep the false figures if you want.

It seems like they are way out of proportion and inconsistent with the figures on each respective page. The Velvet Rope, for example, did not exceed 30 million. 46.208.143.163 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Although this entire discussion page has comments from multiple Users saying the sales data being used is not reliable, the actual article goes against the discussion. This is against wikipedia policy. Concensus is formed, and then the majority rule. Maggott2000 17:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually no reason for CravingJanet to not be used. The issues raised are non valid for the following: that it is not the website that is combining RIAA, Soundscan and BMG sales, it is editors to this article. It is not the website that has inflated figures, as 3 separate sources state the near same data, so this is the required consistancy. Referencing has been done to include this site. I will remove the neutrality tag. Maggott2000 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Discipline' section : unsourced single

Why is there a row for the song '2nite', when there is no official announcement of it being a single, much less a page for it? Someone please remove it. Reqluce (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags as column headers

These need to be removed per WP:FLAGS as they are obviously being used as decoration. More importantly, the flags should not be here in place of wikilinked text showing what the numbers in the columns represent. - eo (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart peaks in Canada

I have noticed that some of the chart peaks for Canada are wrong, and don't even match the peaks stated in the individual articles. I tried to fix this, but my edits were reverted. Can someone please fix this. The correct chart peaks are listed here-http://www.mjjcharts.com/Canadajanet.htm Thanks63.215.26.168 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source. — Realist2 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What source is being used?63.215.26.168 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep this discussion in one place please (as in here). I don't need a source, I'm just reverting unsourced alterations to the article. — Realist2 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japan charts

She does not have 22 number one singles in Japan. For instance "So Excited" peaked at 13. So what's this business? PhoenixPrince (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many countries!

hey guys, the studio albums table in this article contains too many countries. the guidelines for featured lists and such states a maximum of 10 countries, this one has 14. i suggest cutting them down to US, AUS, CAN, FRA, GER, IRE, NL, NZ, SWE, UK. opinions guys? :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Belgium, Norway and Switzerland and Austria should go because they are relatively small markets and therefore relatively insignificant compared to the others. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
and also maybe SA should be removed from the singles? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
yep agree completely :) Mister sparky (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Japan should be added because she has a large number of #1's on the japanese charts, and she gets so much respect and attention from Japan they deserve to be added (Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Singles needs repair

The singles section needs fixing. There are two 'Soundtrack/other singles' and two 'As featured artist', the second ones need to be removed. Hdk94 (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures are greatly skewed.

Janet's domestic and international sales figures need a severe reevaluation. None of the worldwide sales figures have a legitimate source backing these numbers listed, and the domestic figures listed here in many cases do not match the source given. Damita Jo is listed here at 1.5 million domestically, but the Billboard source states 1,002,000; Billboard says that 20 Y.O. sold 655,000 copies, and yet here its domestic figures are shown at one million sold; Billboard says Disciple sold 441,000 copies domestically, and yet here the album is listed at 500,000. Also, I've searched several sources that state janet. worldwide sales are at 16 million, rather than the 20 million shown here. Clearly, fans have gotten hold of this article and are boosting the figures. This article's stats needs to be reorganized. — The Real One Returns 07:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Chart?

Does Janet really have that many numbers ones in Japan? Can someone confirm that? Also, I'm certain Make Me never received a platinum certification and neither did Feedback, so I'm gonna remove those. Floetry Spades (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to Lock Page

Can I request the page be locked once you all clean it up? Floetry Spades (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate sum of U.S. #1 singles

Janet has 10 total U.S. #1 singles, not 11. This needs to be fixed. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.218.166 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discipline

Discipline sold 441,000 copies in the US. but certificad Gold by RIAA (500,000 shippiments) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukek26 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC) on the official Island Records website that discipline is sold until November 2009, 950,000-1 million copies in October of that year was certified gold by the RIAA, and in Brazil and Japan in addition to being platinum in Canada where he debuted at number 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukek26 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 is not in the decade of 2010!!

Janet is not the only artist with singles dating in 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s...because guess what? 2009 isn't in the 2010s!! Thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.19.21 (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Make Me is number #1 in january 2010! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.32.238.49 (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from a MJJ fan website is not Wiki-compliant.

Once again I'm seeing that someone has put up alleged sales info. from that MJJ fan site. I don't have time to edit this out, but if it isn't removed soon, I will do it later. This is not a proper source for Wikipedia. - The Real One Returns (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, hey there, while I do agree with you on that MJJ site not being a 'reliable source'; it is a source. The numbers provided sound valid to me; they're not some outrageous figures. I've searched high and low for a reliable source that states world sales and cannot find one. If [unreliable source?] were added to each of the figures given, it could give the reader the opportunity to decide if they think it is reliable or not.

Splitting her Discography into two

Before I begin to do anything, I wanted to get everyones opinion on splitting Janet Jackson's Discography into two; Janet Jackson albums discography and Janet Jackson singles discography. I see that someone already started them two years ago, but it would be nice to separate them. All other artists of her magnitude have this, and I thought it would be a great idea to do the same for her. Her discography is also in need of major updates and if you like the idea, respond with your thoughts and I'll start on it! Thanks! Ga Be 19 06:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody care to share they're thoughts? Anybody?? Ga Be 19 06:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support this notion, though it would be for a single discography, album discography and videography as has been done with Mariah Carey's discography. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good...whatever format lets us add more info i am all for!Moxy (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't like them jumbled up together, we can do that. Hell they did it for Michael so why not lol BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. :) SnapSnap 18:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, because Janet have a large discography--ΛΛLIYΛH (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. La Bouche 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening discussion

I would support a split, as her discography is extensive. An attempt was made this morning to split this, but I don't see any movement on this topic since January. Is everyone still on-board with an article split? - eo (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it seemed rather unanimous that a split would be appropriate, an attempt at doing this is underway at User:Tombo671/Janet Jackson albums discography and I presume later at User:Tombo671/Janet Jackson singles discography. I'm sure Tombo671 would appreciate any help offered. --Muhandes (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a rough draft saved on my computer that I stared a year ago but haven't finished due to my procrastination haha. As I originally brought it up to split, I can enter and save what I have and appropriate edits could be made by me and others if they would like. It is my desire to get both articles to FA. — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 08:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start Anew

Start Anew is an off-album single, the song is not on the Dream Street album. I'm not brave enough to mess with a table, someone please correct it. – Alensha talk 21:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 top ten singles form one album

Um...Janet is not the only artist to achieve this feat NOR is she the first. Adam did it in 1983 with seven songs from Thriller: "The Girl is Mine" #2 "Billie Jean" #1 "Beat It" #1 "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" #5 "Human Nature" #7 "P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)" #10 and "Thriller" #4 108.66.153.230 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you were looking at an erroneous earlier version of the page, but as it stands now the correct record is reflected, which is seven top five singles from one album. --SophiaPehawkins (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For both The Best Things in Life are Free and Scream, Janet is credited on this page as a featured artist rather than as a lead artist. It is my understanding that TBTILAF is actually credited as 'Luther Vandross and Janet Jackson with special guests BBD and Ralph Tresvant' and Scream as 'Adam Jackson and Janet Jackson'. The artwork on their respective pages reflects this. I don't have much knowledge of editing pages right now. Should/could this be fixed? SophiaPehawkins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect totals.

The first paragraph is incorrect. Jackson has 16 number ones on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart and 19 number ones on the Hot Dance/Club Play chart. A new source needs to be obtained that reflects these numbers.SophiaPehawkins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current source, allmusic does support those numbers.--Harout72 (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a relevant source. These are Billboard totals we're talking about. These aren't debatable numbers. These facts are easily obtained by perusing Billboard's extensively published statistics. SophiaPehawkins (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014

Janet Jackson's sales are outdated. Rhythm Nation 1814 sold 14 million by 1998 but by 2014 it has sold 20 million http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/09/19/janet-jackson-rhythm-nation-1814-25th-anniversary/ 72.95.62.68 (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the available certified sales for Rhythm Nation 1814, even the currently listed 14 million is inflated, which is a source from 2009. Surely, that album didn't sell another six million within the last five years.
Here is the available certified sales for Rhythm Nation 1814:
  • U.S.=6x Platinum (6 million certified units)
  • U.K.=Platinum (300,000 certified units)
  • Canada=Platinum (100,000 certified units)
  • Switzerland=Gold (25,000 certified units)
Based on the available certified units, Rhythm Nation 1814 could not have sold more than 10 million units. In other words, all sales figures higher than that are simply tossed about for promotional purposes.--Harout72 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14 Million has been used since 1998 for Rhythm Nation. Source is Billboard Magazine. You're skipping 16 years later to 20. Dam!ta (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the album's available certified sales, the number of sold units hasn't changed since then 1998. In fact, even then the 14 million was inflated. The 14 million is still being reported to this day by many, including ABC news.--Harout72 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we went by "certified" sales, "janet." would only be at 6 million considering it has scanned 7.3 million. The 1814 number has been reported for over 16 years as 14 million, I'm not shocked that they are finally reporting a different number after 16 years. Sadly, Janet is one of the most under-certified acts of the last 20-30 years. Even "All for You" has scanned 3.3 million, but it is only certified for 2 million. "Feedback" has scanned 800,000 units as of 2010 and isn't even certified Gold. Certified sales aren't saying much for an artist that has actually scanned more than she's actually certified for. Dam!ta (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion thread is for Rhythm Nation, so let's keep it on that and not concentrate on other albums. And yes, the certified sales should always be brought in when analyzing reported sales claims. There could always be some units that have yet to be certified, but the actual sold units and the certified units are never that far away from each other. As I said above, there are new sources that still claim 14 million, which you replaced with older ones just to prove your point. That is disruptive editing.--Harout72 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Your claim that certified units are never that far from each other is 100% wrong.

Entertainment Weekly is a reputable source we can go by. Why wouldn't we. 14 million has been used for 16 years. 174.44.204.67 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA certified units are sometimes higher than the actual sold units because the certified sales are always based on shipped units in the U.S., and not the actual sold units. In other words, sometimes there are more units are shipped and certified than sold. But that doesn't mean that the certified sales cannot be used to analyze actual claimed figures because most of the time, the certified sales are a bit lower (but not by much) than the actual sales, because the albums/singles/videos need to reach a certain level in each market in order to receive Gold/Platinum award.--Harout72 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2014

Discipline sold 507,000 in the U.S Not 400,000. There needs to be an update on this and the total album sales need to be added. 72.95.62.68 (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source?--Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why have r&b chart figures been eliminated?

She's one of the strongest-performing artists in the history of the US r&b charts. The figures used to be here, but someone's been unnecessarily cut-throat on this discography lately. 216.38.143.2 (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Janet_Jackson_singles_discography&oldid=628840896"